Donate

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Rick Santorum Is An Article II
Natural Born Citizen and Eligible to Be President

By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.

January 28, 2015

Rick
Santorum will be a presidential candidate in 2016.As we know, the President and Commander in
Chief of the Military must be, among other things (at least 35 years old and a
resident in the United States at least 14 years), an Article II “natural born Citizen”
in order to be eligible for that Office.There has been some chatter that Rick Santorum is not a natural born
citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.My research shows the contrary, i.e., that
Rick Santorum is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.

The one and only definition of a
natural born citizen the Framers used when they adopted the Constitution is the universal one which is a
child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the
child's birth, meaning, when applied to the United States, a child born in the
United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's
birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) ) (“The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor
v. Happersett (1875) (“‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers
of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born
in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also. These were natives, or [902]
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (distinguished a "natural born citizen"
as so originally defined by the common law at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution per Minor from a "citizen" at birth under the Fourteenth
Amendment which was ratified 81 years after the adoption of the
Constitution). Does Rick Santorum meet the Framers’
common law definition of an Article II natural born citizen” My research shows that he does.

Rick
Santorum was born on May 10, 1958 in Virginia.
"Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum
(1923–2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age
seven from Riva del Garda, Italy, and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (b. 1918), an
administrative nurse who is of Italian and Irish ancestry.[8] Santorum was born in Winchester, Virginia, and grew up in Berkeley County, West Virginia, and Butler County, Pennsylvania.” (footnotes omitted). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum . Aldo Santorum (Rick Santorum’s father, who was born
on January 9, 1923 in
Italy)
was the son of Pietro Santorum (Rick Santorum’s grandfather). Pietro, an Italian citizen, came to America on
November 20, 1923, and naturalized to become a citizen of the United States on April 14, 1930. See the research done by Commander Charles F. Kerchner at https://www.scribd.com/doc/86126538/Pietro-Santorum-Naturalization-Records-filed-1930-at-Somerset-County-PA-Courthouse
When Pietro became a citizen of the
United States, Aldo was a minor and still living in Italy. Aldo got derivative U.S. citizenship through his
father, Pietro, when Aldo arrived in the United States on August 23, 1930 when he was age
7. Aldo Santorum automatically become a citizen on August 23, 1930 through the naturalization of his father which had already occurred on April 14, 1930. This type of citizenship is called derivative citizenship. But since he was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the formal sense after his birth, he did not have any evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. So, on April 17, 1961, he filed for a Certificate of Citizenship, not to obtain citizenship which he already had since 1930, but only to obtain evidence of that citizenship. His application and related documents have also been obtained by Mr. Kerchner and can be viewed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108907280/100-Proof-Rick-Santorum-Born-a-Dual-Citizen-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-Father-perfected-naturalization-3-yrs-after-Rick-was-born-FOIA-Response-R . These documents show that Aldo served in the U.S. military from 1944 to 1946. The Immigration and Naturalization Officer who reviewed his application recommended that his Certificate of Citizenship be granted, concluding:

"[T]he applicant did derive or acquire United States citizenship on August 23, 1930 through on which date he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States and under the age of 21 years, his father having been naturalized on April 14, 1930, his mother being an alien. and that he has not been expatriated since that time."

Rick was not yet born when Pietro and Aldo became U.S. citizens in 1930.
Aldo married Catherine (Dughi) Santorum, who was a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Rick Santorum was born on May 10,
1958, to Aldo and Catherine, both his parents were U.S. citizens.

We have
seen that both de facto President Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz, both not
born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of
their son’s birth, do not satisfy the constitutional common law definition of a
natural born citizen. See my many
articles on this issue at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com
. On the other hand, my research shows
that when Rick Santorum was born in Virginia in 1958, he was born to a father
and mother who were both citizens of the United States. Those birth circumstances make Rick Santorum
an Article II natural born citizen and eligible to be President and Commander
in Chief of the Military.

33
comments:

"Rick was not yet born when Pietro and Aldo became U.S. citizens in 1930. Aldo married Catherine (Dughi) Santorum, who was a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Rick Santorum was born on May 10, 1958, to Aldo and Catherine, both his parents were U.S. citizens."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

See how simple it is to express John Jay's "original genesis original intent" when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington?

ONLY Singular U.S. CitizenshipONLY Birth on U.S. soilONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

No litigation is necessaryNo lawyers' feesNo obfuscation

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

In your post, you mention that Rick Santorum's grandfather Pietro naturalized as a U.S. citizen on April 14, 1930 and Santorum's father Aldo derived his U.S. citizenship from his father Pietro.

The question:

When Santorum's grandfather Pietro renounced his Italian citizenship when he was naturalized on April 30, 1930, did Santorum's father Aldo derive his father's renunciation also, or did Aldo need to ALSO naturalize and ALSO renounce Italian citizenship after reaching the age of majority?

CDR Kerchner has a comment at BirtherReport saying that Santorum's father Aldo did not renounce his Italian citizenship until 1961, three years after Rick was born.

"The aforementioned SCRIBD.com link and my 2012 blog post link contains my conclusion after getting the additional document showing that while Aldo Santorum was eligible for U.S. Citizenship for decades under various U.S. laws, Aldo Santorum did not perfect his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance to the United States and renouncing his foreign citizenship until 3 years after Rick was born. Thus Aldo passed his Italian citizenship to Rick when Rick was born. I do not agree with Atty Mario Apuzzo's conclusive statement that Rick Santorum is a natural born Citizen, i.e., a person born with Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance to the United States. I have not changed my position."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

I must respectfully disagree with Commander Kerchner. The required oath of allegiance is a red herring in the case of Aldo Santorum becoming a citizen of the United States.

The oath of allegiance is required only when an alien applies for naturalization through a naturalization petition. See Immigration and Naturalization Act, Sec. 337 [8 U.S.C. 1448] at http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10309.html ; 8 C.F.R. 337.1 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title8-vol1/xml/CFR-2014-title8-vol1-sec337-1.xml ; http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america . One must be at least 18 years old to file a naturalization petition. A minor cannot file such a petition. Under the proper circumstances (not applicable to Aldo Santorum), a parent can file a naturalization petition for a minor child.

Aldo’s father, Pietro, was an adult when he became a citizen of the United States. To accomplish that, he had to file a Declaration of Intention and a Petition for Citizenship through naturalization. Before he was accepted as a citizen of the United States, he did have to take an Oath of Allegiance which he gave on May 14, 1940. He was given U.S. citizenship as of April 14, 1930. But Aldo, Pietro’s son, went through a different process to become a citizen of the United States.

Aldo did not need to perfect either citizenship or naturalization. There is no such thing as perfecting one’s citizenship. Citizenship is like being pregnant, either one is or one is not. Aldo did not receive his U.S. citizenship through a formal naturalization process as did his father. Aldo, who was only 7 years old, automatically became a citizen of the United States derivatively through his father’s naturalization. That means that he became a citizen automatically when his father naturalized and he entered the United States as a legal permanent resident on August 23, 1930. Becoming a citizen automatically upon becoming a legal permanent resident, his parents did not have to file a petition for naturalization on his behalf and he did not have to swear the required Oath of Allegiance. See Immigration and Naturalization Act Sec. 320 at http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html (prescribes the current conditions for automatically becoming a citizen of the United States after birth none of which conditions include taking an Oath of Allegiance; the previous law applicable to Aldo also did not require the Oath of Allegiance).

If Aldo had continued to live in Italy, his U.S. citizen father could have filed a naturalization petition on his behalf while Aldo was still a minor. In such case Aldo would have had to give an Oath of Allegiance when coming to America before becoming a U.S. citizen. But even in such case, the oath could have been waived if he was considered too young to understand it.

That Aldo took the oath of allegiance on April 24, 1961 only went to show that he did not expatriate while he was a citizen. The oath was needed to obtain proof of citizenship, the Certificate of Citizenship. Today, the oath will be waived if the applicant is too young or too disabled to understand it, or if no interview is required. The oath was not needed to become a citizen of the United States which Aldo already automatically was since August 23, 1930. This fact is plainly stated on his Certificate of Citizenship and in the recommendation of the Immigration and Naturalization Officer. The Immigration and Naturalization Service officer confirmed in his application that he had already been a citizen since 1930, concluding:

"[T]he applicant did derive or acquire United States citizenship on August 23, 1930 through on which date he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States and under the age of 21 years, his father having been naturalized on April 14, 1930, his mother being an alien. and that he has not been expatriated since that time."

We can also see from examining Aldo’s Application for the Certificate of Citizenship that he also did not have an Alien number. His application shows: “ALIEN REGISTRATION NO. _______.” The application says: “I hereby apply to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization for a certificate showing that I am a citizen of the United States of America.” Hence, he was already a citizen and would not have had an alien number.

If Aldo needed to take the Oath of Allegiance as he did on April 24, 1961, the United States Government would not have recognized him as a citizen of the United States since August 23, 1930. He also would not have been eligible to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship which was provided only to persons who were already citizens of the United States either from the moment of birth by being born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or derivatively through their parents who naturalized at the time of their children’s minority and when the children entered the United States as legal permanent residents.

Lastly, Aldo served in the U.S. military during World War II. He risked his life to defend America. I would think that would be better than taking an Oath of Allegiance, for he proved his loyalty by risking his life rather than just talking about it.

A natural born citizen is a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Nothing more or less is required. Again, Rick Santorum was born in Virginia on May 10, 1958 to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Hence, the conclusion is unshakable that Santorum is an Article II natural born citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

"Aldo Santorum automatically become a citizen on August 23, 1930 through the naturalization of his father which had already occurred on April 14, 1930. This type of citizenship is called derivative citizenship. But since he was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the formal sense after his birth, he did not have any evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. So, on April 17, 1961, he filed for a Certificate of Citizenship, not to obtain citizenship which he already had since 1930, but only to obtain evidence of that citizenship."

This is from your comment post today – 3rd paragraph from the end, on January 30, 2015 at 9:40 PM -

"If Aldo needed to take the Oath of Allegiance [sic – ,?] as he did on April 24, 1961, the United States Government would not have recognized him as a citizen of the United States since August 23, 1930. He also would not have been eligible to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship which was provided only to persons who were already citizens of the United States either from the moment of birth by being born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or derivatively through their parents who naturalized at the time of their children’s minority and when the children entered the United States as legal permanent residents."

Two questions about today's comment:

#1-Does "citizens" in "...eligible to apply for Certificate of Citizenship...provided only to persons who were already citizens..." mean "citizens" with singular citizenship or dual citizenship?

#2-The last three words of the paragraph, "...legal permanent residents," do the three words mean that when reaching majority status the child did NOT need to naturalize and renounce foreign citizenship?

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Let us imagine that Aldo Santorum on his majority legally renounced his American citizenship. Would our government have found him to be an Italian national?

What would the Italian government have determined of his nationality? The Italian government required Aldo to renounce his Italian citizenship in order to relinquish it. That would make him a traitor in their eyes if he took up arms against Italy in the war.

As things were in fact, wouldn't he be a dual citizen until his Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation?

Or perhaps not, as in 1941 we were at war with Italy and our government might have deemed joining the army, particularly if voluntary and after Italy's declaration of war on December 11th, as an affirmative act equivalent to a renunciation of Italian citizenship.

Are you saying that a dual citizenship parent is no bar to producing NBC offspring? The loyalties of a dual citizen parent are passed down to the child. Isn't that what Natural Law requires? Conflicted loyalties is what the test of NBC status was to prevent. How is parental dual citizenship not antithetical to the generation of NBC offspring?

Thank you. I very much enjoy your thoughts.

Name redacted~~~~~

My response:

Name redacted,

You maintain that Aldo Santorum was a citizen of the United States and of Italy when Rick Santorum was born in 1958.

Hence, you do agree with me that Aldo Santorum was a U.S. citizen when Rick Santorum was born in 1958.

You also maintain that Aldo Santorum was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy when Rick Santorum was born in 1958.

How do you conclude that Aldo was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy in 1958?

I will answer your two questions of me at January 30, 2015, at 11:11 PM.

1. First, under the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress, meaning not under our constitutional common law, our nation has been giving U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth to children born with dual citizenship. What makes these children not natural born citizens is that they were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Their being dual citizens is only a consequence of not being born as natural born citizens. It is not the factor which determines whether they are natural born citizens. Foreign nations can make any law they please which can make children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents also citizens of those nations. We cannot allow a foreign nation to determine who will or will not be a U.S. natural born citizen. Rather, we must define our natural born citizens under the applicable law to which the Framers looked for their definition and that was the common law which incorporated the law of nations and which defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Second, and more to your point, assuming that it is relevant, even though I have asked for it at www.birtherreport.com of those who agree with Commander Kerchner that Rick Santorum is not a natural born citizen, I have not seen any evidence that Aldo Santorum was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy in 1958 when Rick Santorum was born. You are free to help them in their endeavor.

2. A child like Aldo Santorum, who derived his U.S. citizenship from his naturalized father when he was a minor did not naturalize in the legal formal sense of how the word is used in our immigration and naturalization positive laws (not to be confused and confounded with the natural law sense). Rather, he automatically became a citizen of the United States when his father naturalized and when Aldo entered the United States as a legal permanent resident. Hence, the minor Aldo needed neither naturalization nor an oath of allegiance to be a citizen of the United States. All this occurred in 1930, well before Rick Santorum was born in 1958 in Virginia to Aldo Santorum and Catherine Santorum, both citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. You are welcome to provide evidence that Aldo needed to take an oath of allegiance in order to be a citizen of the United States since 1930.

Evony Master made this response to my comment at www.birtherreport.com :

With respect, YOU are the one making the claim as to Santorum's eligibility. One would think that you would have verified he WAS NOT a dual citizen before making such a claim and can therefore simply produce your proof that he renounced it prior to the birth of his son. I honestly don't know when, or even IF, he renounced it, so I too am interested in that information. if he did renounce it before his son's birth, I would conclude Santorum is eligible, if he did not, that would indicate Santorum, whether he is aware of it or not, is a US-Italian dual citizen and therefore ineligible to the office.

~~~~~

This is my reply:

I said that Rick Santorum is an Article II natural born citizen because he was born in the United States to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. You concede that Rick was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Rather, you want to add to the definition of and the requirements for being a natural born citizen. Your defense is that Rick's father, Aldo, had dual citizenship of the United States and Italy when Rick was born in 1958 which gave Rick a dual citizenship and allegiance in the United States and Italy. I do not have to prove the negative of your contention. You are refuting my position based on dual citizenship and allegiance and so the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Aldo had this alleged dual citizenship and allegiance which Rick then inherited at the time of his birth. Only assuming that there is a legal basis for your position, if you have no such factual evidence, then your point and entire argument fails.

Additionally, you have to provide Italian law which shows that Aldo was still an Italian citizen in 1958 and that when Rick was born in 1958, he was not only born a citizen of the United States, but also an Italian citizen. You have also failed to provide this law which also shows that there is no legal basis to your position.

You have every right to your position. But when you cannot support your position with facts and law, your position simply fails.

Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/attorney-rick-santorum-is-article-ii.html#PyxmkGKPUYv57fIP.99 .

"(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

"(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization."

[...]

This INA: ACT 320 [8 U.S.C. 1431] is definitive in it's ONLY meaning, it's ONLY purpose, and the common sense aspect of the ONLY purpose has ONLY one implicature that can NOT allow for an alternative.

For example, the "implicature" of "can" in "can you pass the salt?":

"Can you pass the salt" has ONLY one literal meaning, are you "able" to pass the salt, and ONLY one original intent, ONLY one implicature, "will" you pass the salt.

The ONLY original intent of INA: ACT 320, the ONLY implicature allows for only one answer, not more than one answer to the question, "does a child derive perpetual singular U.S. citizenship from a naturalized parent?"

YES.

A child who immigrates to the U.S. after a parent naturalizes is a "citizen" child who has perpetual singular U.S. citizenship that is derived by the automatic naturalization of the child by simply being present on U.S. soil, not born, simply being present on U.S. soil on which the parents or parent has already naturalized and is recognized by the statute, the positive law, as a "singular" U.S. citizen.

Mario, if a choice based on implicature is required, my choice is affirmative to your proposition that Sen. Rick Santorum is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because ONLY one implicature is intended and allowed by the language of Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] clause "a".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, back to my original post here on January 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM:

See how simple it is to express John Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" in underlining the common sense word "born" with only one implicature in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington?

And in Sen. Santorum's case:

ONLY Singular U.S. CitizenshipONLY Birth on U.S. soilONLY Birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

No litigation is necessaryNo lawyers' feesNo obfuscation

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Your response to "Poor, poor Bob" over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans was right on. Before I saw your comment there, I read the promo copy on the Italian Dual Passport site, and I noticed the language to obtain a simple Italian Dual Passport was similar to the language of the current INA: ACT 320, and it got me thinking about Sen. Santorum's father Aldo and whether or not Aldo Santorum had perpetual singular U.S. citizen by naturalization derived from his father Pietro.

To "poor, poor Bob": "About the comment that I approved, did you even bother to open the link and read the information. It is highly relevant. "

Below is the first Case Scenario from the promo copy posted by the pretty, uh, by the spammer on the Italian Dual Passport website ( http://eu-italianpassport.com ).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Do I Qualify?"You qualify if at the moment of the birth of your Italian ancestor’s child, your Italian ancestor ( i.e. grandfather, father, grandmother, great-grandfather etc.) was still an Italian citizen."

The important relevant words of contrast for my purpose here to clarify the singular U.S. citizenship of Sen. Santorum are "you qualify if ... moment ... birth ... child ... ancestor ... still..."

Briefly, the relevance of the language of a simple time frame, "moment of the birth...still," if the language is important for simply getting an Italian Dual Passport, well, concerning the "natural born Citizen" status of Sen. Rick Santorum, the language of a time frame in a naturalization act in the 1930s and the language of an INA ACT in 2015 is more important for determining who is a singular U.S. citizen by naturalization and by birth—and who is not—and if the singular U.S. citizenship is perpetual beyond reaching the age of majority—and if it's not.

"Case Scenario 1"Applying through your grandfather

"Let’s say your paternal grandfather came from Italy. You qualify if at the time of your father’s birth, your grandfather was still an Italian citizen (not yet naturalized American). The reason being is the citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the parent."

In Sen. Santorum's case, although the application of the words on the Italian Dual Passport website do not apply to Sen. Santorum, the words of similarity that are relevant become clear when his name and his father's and grandfather's names are inserted in the text:

"Let's say[ Rick ] your paternal grandfather [ Pietro ] came from Italy. You [ Rick—grandson ] qualify if at the time of [ Aldo ] your father's birth , your grandfather [ Pietro ] was still an Italian citizen (not yet naturalized American). The reason being is the citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by a parent."

So, to acquire a simple Italian Dual Passport, the citizenship passes from grandfather Pietro to son Aldo to grandson Rick. Simple to understand—a birth "right" passes by birth.

The question about Sen. Santorum is, does grandfather Pietro, with a perpetual positive law naturalized "right" of U.S. citizenship, pass perpetual U.S. citizenship automatically to his son Aldo, naturalized with an oath by simple immigration onto U.S. soil, and then, when the son Aldo reaches the age of majority, does the son Aldo pass on perpetual U.S. citizenship to his son Rick who is born on U.S. soil and born to two U.S. citizen married parents?

Yes—if the implicature of the language of the naturalization act allows it. If there is no language in the naturalization act requiring formal naturalization by oath, the ONLY implicature answer is yes, the singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro passes to the son Aldo and to passes to the son Rick.

The words of contrast in the previous quote that are relevant to Sen. Santorum's eligibility to be POTUS concern his grandfather Pietro being already a naturalized U.S. citizen with singular U.S. citizenship when his son Aldo arrived in America, as expressed in the current INA: ACT:

"Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431]

"(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

"(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization."

The positive law singular U.S. citizenship of Pietro, although not a natural law citizenship as in Case Scenario 1—the "reason being...citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the parent"—Pietro's positive law U.S. citizenship, according to the implicature of the language in the current INA: ACT Sec. 320, if it is essentially similar to the 1930s language, the positive law citizenship language of clause "a"—"...becomes a citizen"— this language indicates a positive law "right" created by the U.S. Congress that is transferred by positive law oath and naturalization by the parent Pietro to son Aldo.

If Sen. Santorum's grandfather Pietro's positive law singular U.S. citizenship was not perpetually derived by his son Aldo in the 1930s, meaning that at the age of majority Aldo would need to formally naturalize with an oath, explicit clarifying language would probably have been inserted in the same clause or a succeeding clause that would require naturalization by children of a naturalized parent when the naturalized children reached the age of majority.

Since no such language is inserted in the current INA: ACT, the ONLY common sense implicature allowed is that the perpetual positive law singular U.S. citizenship acquired by naturalization by grandfather Pietro was, by the positive law naturalization of the 1930s, perpetually derived by his son Aldo, and the same singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro transferred to his son Aldo would be transferred to Aldo's son Rick by Rick's birth in 1958 on U.S. soil to his two U.S. citizen married parents, perpetual U.S. citizen by naturalization Aldo and his wife Catherine, a perpetual U.S. citizen from birth.

Whether grandfather Aldo's U.S. citizenship was by natural law birth on U.S. soil or by positive law oath and naturalization on U..S. soil, the INA: ACT Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] "citizens...birth" language has ONLY one implicature that can only mean that Sen. Santorum derived his natural law "natural born" singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Aldo, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship from his positive law singular U.S. citizenship father, Pietro, who derived his positive law singular U.S. citizenship by oath and naturalization by authority of the positive law that was current in the 1930s. The assumption being made here is that the 1930 naturalization language was similar and with the same implicature as this current INA:ACT Sec. 320 language.

When I read Case Scenario #1 detailing how to get an Italian Passport "IF" the grandfather was "STILL" an Italian citizen when "YOUR" father was born so that "YOU" can get an Italian Passport, I noticed something that is very relevant to the way that Obama birth narrative neo-birthers since 2008 and Republican – Independent – Libertarian – Anarchist "MY GUY/"MY GAL" neo-birthers since 2012 seem to deliberately ignore the ONLY implicature of the 1787 original language in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and the ONLY implicature of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.

For example, neo-birthers, regardless of their political affiliation, never want to give their 2015 opinion about what THEY think, not what do THEY "know" but simply what do THEY "think" about what John Jay "may" have meant in 1787 and what Jay's original genesis original intent implicature "may" have been in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."

Do neo-birthers think that Jay implied and meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, or do neo-birthers think that Jay REALLY implied and meant singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and that Jay REALLY meant being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who may OR may NOT have been married to each other BEFORE the child is born? By asserting singular AND dual citizenship, neo-birthers are incoherent, because there can NOT be two implicatures, singular U.S. citizenship and dual U.S./foreign citizenship, there can be ONLY one common sense implicature in the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and that implicature can ONLY be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, not both. John Jay was not schizophrenic, ambiguous or vague.

The neo-birthers seem to want to make of prime importance the implicature of the words "citizens...jurisdiction," found 81 years later in the 1868 14th Amendment, as NOT meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship but ALSO meaning dual U.S./foreign citizenship AND being born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married OR not married to each other BEFORE the child is born on U.S. soil.

That incessant back and forth about 1787 original intent and 1868 original intent is why we need a change in the conversation about "natural born Citizen" from what did "natural born Citizen" mean to the WE the People original birthers and framers in 1787, and what did "citizen" mean to the WE the People framers in 1868. The conversation should be changed to what do WE the People want "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" to mean in 2000s America. That is why an Article V convention of the states to propose an amendment to Article II and an amendment to the 14th Amendment should be debated before someone else says I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America too with only one U.S. citizen parent, or a variant such as, "I-was-born-on-U.S.-soil-to-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-and-I-managed-to-be-elected-POTUS-and-Commander-in-Chief" too.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the UnionOriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com : Time to Change the Conversation—Time to Choose

Your understanding of the Rick Santorum natural born citizen issue is excellent. I can surely say that you see relevancy even when it is hidden deeply in the weeds. In contrast, Obot Bob cannot see it even when it is on his nose and he is looking at himself in the mirror.

I received this response in the email exchanged noted above at January 31, 2015 at 4:43 PM:

Mario,

Short answer:

I do not conclude that Aldo was a dual citizen in 1958. He certainly wouldn't have been had he taken the oath before 1958. I do agree with you but with less certainty, if you still consider that agreement, that Rick Santorum is a NBC.

Longer answer:

No government has the power to remove a person's foreign citizenship. A person's interactions with the foreign country in question have that power. Our government does recognize the Natural Law right of renunciation among them.

Did Aldo actions cause Italy to revoke his born Italian citizenship before 1958? I would think his reputed war efforts for the allies would be good grounds :). Maybe even Natural Law grounds not requiring Italy's recognition. After the 1961 renunciation his citizenship was certainly exclusively American.

So I think he was an exclusively American citizen in 1958 but I am often wrong and I still wonder if the American government had they made inquiries in 1961 might have thought the Oath dispositive. Particularly if what Italy thought was treason in 1942 was laudable in 1961.

Dual citizenship is an unnatural citizenship due to possible conflicts of loyalty. The Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation honestly sworn puts a person in a natural state of Citizenship. A Natural Citizen but not a Natural Born Citizen. Isn't it fair to say that a person who has changed his citizenship from the unnatural dual state to the natural state has perfected their citizenship?

Which prompted my question:

Is my notion that dual citizen status in a parent is problematic to NBC status in the child not worth considering? If Aldo was also Italian at Rick's birth in 1958 by Italian law so also would Rick be regardless where Rick was born.

The Constitution requires that for one to be a natural born citizen, one be born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). With respect to the parents, it only requires that they be citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Hence, the parents could have obtained their citizenship either at birth or after birth. There is only one way to become a natural born citizen and that is to satisfy the requirements of this common law definition. On the other hand, there are many ways to become a citizen, all prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, and treaties. How to become a natural born citizen has never changed during our history. How to become a citizen at birth or after birth has had many changes.

The applicable Act of Congress determined how Aldo Santorum (Rick Santorum’s father) became a U.S. citizen. His immigration file shows that he became a citizen of the United States in 1930. Because he derived his citizenship automatically from his U.S. citizen naturalized father (Pietro) when Aldo was a minor and entered the United States as a permanent resident, there was no need for Aldo to take any Oath of Allegiance. See INA 320 for the requirements to be met for a minor to obtain derivative citizenship from this naturalized father automatically after birth.

Also, under Italian law, Aldo lost his Italian citizenship in 1930, when he automatically became a U.S. citizen. Italy, with few exception that do not apply, is not a jus soli country; it is a jus sanguinis nation. Italy no longer considered Aldo an Italian citizen after Aldo become a U.S. citizen in 1930 after his father naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In other words, the minor Aldo followed the condition of his father (partus sequitur patrem). Under Italian law, Aldo further lost his Italian citizenship, even if he still had any, after Aldo fought for the United States in WWII. Aldo never took any affirmative steps to regain his Italian citizenship. Hence, in 1958, when Rick Santorum was born, Aldo was a citizen of only one nation and that was the United States of America. Aldo did not have any citizenship in Italy for Rick to inherit under jus sanguinis.

It is for these reasons that the argument regarding the Oath of Allegiance which Aldo took in 1961 is a red herring and misguided. That oath has no impact on either Aldo’s or Rick’s U.S. citizenship.

Again, Rick Santorum is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. No one who disagrees with me at www.birtherreport.com or anywhere else has been able to shake off this conclusion.

Knowledge of the Italian government's expatriation of Aldo Santorum in 1930 has extinguished my doubt. Rick Santorum was born a Natural Citizen and by your understanding and now mine a NBC. He has almost certainly retained that status and is therefore under Article II eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

Thank you for pointing out www.birtherreport.com and taking the time to explain again that which you've addressed in other forums.

[name redacted]

The following does not relate to Rick Santorum's status and is only an idea for a blog post. It may be an unsuitable topic in print but are there issues around Article II that it is widely agreed are still open and you are among those thinking so? Those that you find yourself in less company thinking that they are still open?

Are there citizens of a type that raise NBC issues difficult to resolve on grounds of law? That having full documentation on them may still lead you to wonder their status? Is it safe to say most of these issues revolve around retention of NBC status and not the question of being born into it?

You are expressing the Jack Maskell Congressional Research Service thesis. He maintains that any person who is born a citizen, no matter how the status was obtained, is a natural born citizen. He gives natural born citizen status to qualifying children born both in the United States and out of it. The problem for Mr. Maskell is that such a broad and indefinite definition of the clause does not have historical and legal support and is only his creation. The clause is "natural born citizen," not born citizen. You just cannot leave out words from the Constitution.

With the Framers inserting the clause into the Constitution, we can conclude that they had a definite and certain definition for it and not a broad and indefinite one which would change over time. That definition was found in American national common law which incorporated the law of nation’s definition of a natural born citizen and not the English common law’s definition of an English “natural-born subject.” That definition was: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797).

Additionally, Congress can make born citizens through its naturalization powers which is what it did for Senator Cruz. Surely a natural born citizen does not need Congress to exercise its naturalization powers in order to make him/her a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, Congress can treat children born as born citizens during one time as aliens another time. Surely a person who is a natural born citizen cannot have his or her constitutional birth status changed by naturalization act of Congress. In short, the Maskell thesis just does not make sense given the Framers' purpose for requiring future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military to be natural born citizens (insulate that Office from monarchical and foreign influence), the text and structure of the Constitution, and the historical and legal record.

See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (at common law upon which the Framers relied when they drafted the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution, an original citizen was a person who adhered to the American Revolution (elected through express or tacit consent to be a citizen), a subsequent citizen and natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth, and all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners" who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties). Minor actually paraphrased the definition from Vattel’s Section 212 stating:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and Cuban father. Hence, he was not born or reputed born in the United States nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents, causing him to be born under U.S. law subject to a foreign power and not solely in allegiance to the United States. While he is a born citizen under a naturalization Act of Congress, he is not a natural born citizen.

Also, de facto President Barack Obama is also not a natural born citizen. He was presumably born in the United States. But he also was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Mario, you know I have the greatest respect for Charlie, and I know Charlie reads your blog, so if you would grant me the privilege of responding to Charlie I would greatly appreciate it.

Charlie,

You are as knowledgeable on the subject of who is a natural born citizen as Mario and myself, but there are times you get lost in the weeds.

It is settled case law that the parents are the supreme guardian of their children and can expatriate them at will, even children with birthright American citizenship. While the child "partakes during his legal infancy of his father's domicile, but, upon becoming sui juris, has the right to elect his American citizenship, which will be best evidenced by an early return to this country." The allegiance of the child follows the parent until the child reaches majority, for that is the time the child may decide on his own.

It is a fact that Aldo had derivative American citizenship. So the question is what decision did Aldo make upon his majority; Did he choose to be an American or an Italian. The fact is he chose to enlist in the army of the United States. Aldo chose his destiny before Rick was born.

In my opinion Rick has the best claim to natural born citizenship, Is there a shadow on Rick's claim, a small shadow perhaps but nothing like the shadow Cruz and Obama have. They have no right to call themselves natural born citizens.

Aldo's father's oath of allegiance to the United States became binding on his children the moment they resided with him in the United States, and could only be renounced upon their majority.

Again, upon his majority Aldo reaffirmed his allegiance to the United States by taking the oath to protect and defend OUR Constitution.

Rick Santorium's father and mother were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth within the United States, and that makes Rick a natural born citizen in accordance to the law of nations Sec 212.

Why did Aldo naturalize? Perhaps because he didn't have an (American) Birth or Naturalization certificate some idiot told him he just needed to naturalize to get one, after all he was in the Army and entitled to do so.

By affirming in your recent front page article that Sen. Rick Santorum is an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" by and from birth in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents, you have turned the previous "MY GUY" Rick Santorum IS neo-birthers into Santorum original intent birthers.

The "MY GUY" Santorum neo-birthers previously promoted Santorum's POTUS eligibility even though they were told by original intent friends, prominent and well intentioned John Jay "original genesis original intent" birthers, that Rick was not eligible because it was believed by them, by some of us, by me too, at least until I wrote my previous 3 part comment here on your blog, that Rick was not born to two U.S. citizen parents because it was believed by some of us that his father Aldo had not naturalized before Rick was born. However, Rick's father Aldo had permanently derivatively naturalized by statute before Rick was born, and his marriage to a U.S. citizen woman before Rick was born on U.S. soil makes Sen. Santorum a "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

That is how you transformed the previous Santorum neo-birthers into John Jay "original genesis original intent" birthers.

Presto!

The 1787 America original birther John Jay would probably say to the previous Santorum neo-birthers, welcome to the 2015 "original genesis original intent" tent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS. It is obvious that the Obama neo-birthers do NOT want to contradict you by posting here or anywhere, like Cafe Con Leche Republicans, that Santorum is NOT an A2 S1 C5 "nbC" but he IS eligible to be POTUS.

Also, it is obvious that our friends who do believe that Santorum is NOT eligible are at a loss for words... or something, 'cause I'm not seeing ANY substantive rebuttals and coherent refutations, such as saying that the language of the relevant statute implies that Santorum is NOT an "nbC" and eligible in order to refute the position that the implicature of the language of the relevant statute is obvious, Santorum IS an "nbC" and eligible.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

First, a Certificate of Citizenship is available only to those (1) born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or (2) who automatically become a citizen of the United States after birth, but before one turned 18 years old. Senator Ted Cruz falls into the first category. Rick Santorum's father, Aldo Santorum, falls into the second.

Second, today one applies for a Certificate of Citizenship by filing Form N-600 with USCIS. USCIS clearly instructs that someone who is already a citizen under any applicable law is not required to have a Certificate of Citizenship and that "[f]iling this form is NOT a request to become a U.S. citizen. Filing this form is only a request to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship which recognizes that you became a citizen on a particular date." In other words, one does not become a citizen upon being given the Certificate of Citizenship. The Certificate only recognizes that one already was a citizen of the United States as of some moment in time.

So, under a naturalization Act of Congress Cruz became a citizen of the United States "at birth" at the time of his birth in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. A Certificate of Citizenship would have evidenced his citizenship, not created it. The same for Aldo Santorum. Aldo Santorum automatically became a citizen on August 23, 1930 through the naturalization of his father which had already occurred on April 14, 1930. This type of citizenship is called derivative citizenship. But since he was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the formal sense after his birth, he did not have any evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. So, on April 17, 1961, Aldo filed for a Certificate of Citizenship, not to obtain citizenship which he already had since 1930, but only to obtain evidence of that citizenship. Thus, Rick Santorum was born in the United States to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. He is without doubt a natural born citizen.

In order to determine if any given person is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen it is 1st necessary to acquire a Declaratory Judgement on the Constitutional Question from the SCOTUS.

Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legal and enforceable identification of the attending circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the Constitutional usage and intent of the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen at A2S1C5 of the COTUS.

Applying the observed circumstances from the philosophical political narrative of Vattel does in fact comport with the effects of the provisions of the 1790 Act of Congress; ... " ... an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization ..." , however the specific Question citing the Acts of Congress has not EVER been presented in a Bona Fide Petition to the Federal Lower Courts or the SCOTUS.

Once the Acts of the Congress were passed the "authority" of Vattel was relegated to an informative source and no more. Also, Vattel's "natural born citizens" did NOT hold a "national significance" that was invested in the U.S. natural born Citizen in the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision" of A2S1C5.

Vattel observed and described a "circumstance with specific elements in attendance". Those attending elements are provided for in the 1790 Act, the most significant being the establishment of U.S. Citizenship birthright as attached to U.S. Citizenship its-self.

Without the political determination to provide for "birthright citizenship" Vattel's "natural born citizen' can not exist. It is often viewed as one of those, "it goes without saying" taken for granted situations.

(1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

(3)And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

(3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

The effects of these provisions can be characterized, in the general sense, as saying, in words that say so and words that require it; ... " ... Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world. ..." (slc)

The words "considered as" in the 1st provision as a comparative adjective requiring a counterpart , combined with the effects upon the children of the 2nd, confirms that U.S. natural born Citizens were also being born within the limits of the U.S. between March 1790 and January 1795, thereafter ONLY within the limits of the U.S.

Women and wives not being mentioned is confirmation of the operation of the matrimonial doctrine of coverture which considered a woman / wife as the same national character as her husband, whatever that may be.

The 1790 Act, et seq, are sufficient citations upon which to RESORT in support of a Question Presented to the SCOTUS seeking the relief that a Declaratory Judgement on the subject would provide the American people.

Hogwash to EVERYTHING above! You are all acting like the muslim-sodomite (BHO) is a citizen of the united states and so everything is hunky-dory and we can keep electing POTUS as if nothing has ever happened. That is crap and you all know it. Soetoro CANNOT PROVE HE IS A U.S. CITIZEN. Until he does, this whole question about Santorum is complete gibberish! As for that matter, until you can prove that the Republicans elected an eligible Vice President (who then became president) aka Chester Arthur in 1881, then again, this whole argument is gibberish. We haven't had a constitutional valid government since at least 1881 when the Robber Barons got Arthur elected. All of this chattering about Santorum, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal is nothing but vomiting against the wind. Until the matter of Chester and Soetoro gets addressed, Trump and Carson (and the rest of the marxist-lite pigs) mean absolutely NOTHING!

John C. Fremonthttp://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/05/john-charles-fremont-and-natural-born.html

Wednesday, May 19, 2010John Charles Frémont and Natural Born Citizenship

John Charles Frémont was the Republican Party's very first nominee for President of the United States, in 1856. Born in Savannah, Georgia in 1813, he was the son of Charles Fremon and Anne Beverley Whiting.

The traditional narrative holds that Frémont's father, Charles Fremon, was a French immigrant who had fought in the French Revolution. However, according to Andrew F. Rolle, author of John Charles Frémont: Character As Destiny, Frémont's father was actually born Louis-René Frémont in Quebec, Canada. Either way, Rolle reports that after some years of imprisonment overseas, the elder Frémont arrived in Virginia around 1810, and after arriving in Richmond, he began a relationship with Anne Whiting.

John Charles Frémont was born to these two on January 21, 1813. Rolle refers to Charles Fremon as Anne's "foreign lover," and gives no indication whatsoever that he ever naturalized as a U.S. citizen at any time prior to his death in 1818. Moreover, the scandalous origins of Frémont's father were hardly hidden from the public.

Thus, John Charles Frémont, the first Republican Presidential candidate in U.S. history and a man born a scant 26 years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, was himself the son of a non-U.S. citizen father. Just like Barack Obama. And just as the citizenship of Frémont's father was no Constitutional impediment to his eligibility, neither is Obama Senior's an obstacle to his son's.The question then is: will the 'Birthers' accept this as evidence that their favored definition of "natural born citizen" is wrong, or will they attempt to retroactively declare America's first Republican Presidential candidate to be an attempted foreign usurper?

"Charles Fremont came to Virginia around 1810. His son, John Charles Frémont was born in Georgia to him and Anne Beverley Whiting, on January 21 1813.

Please provide evidence that Frémont's father, Charles Fremont, was not a citizen of the United States when John Charles Frémont was born to him and Anne Beverly Whiting on January 21, 1813."------------You know I can't do that, Mr. Apuzzo, but I would sure like to know. Do you know of a way to research that?

I have another question that you might be able to help with. Would it be true that, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, children of unwed mothers were not citizens? if so, can we ascertain the naturalization of any of them?

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.